MDDM Washington & Gershom

[jbor]

on 9/7/02 1:10 PM, Doug Millison at millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> jbor:
>> Where, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, is it indicated that George and Gersh
>> "remain fixed in their roles as master and slave"? [snip the rest of that
>> series]
> 
> 
> I've quoted P's text on most if not all of these  questions.

No, you haven't. Not that I've noticed, anyway.

> 
> jbor:
>> Chapter 28, of course, where Gershom is shown to hold equal rank with both
>> George and Martha
> 
> 
> P shows no such thing,

Yes, he does.

> Gershom can't possibly hold equal rank with George
> and Martha because he's their slave,

Where, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, is this point made?

> their propertym the relationship is
> unequal by definition.

In the context of GW and Gershom, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, this remains
your "definition" and not the text's.

> W's "nominal Master"
> comment takes for granted the inherently unequal master-slave relationship
> that in fact exists between the two men.

No, it doesn't. You might take this "for granted", but neither Pynchon's GW
nor the text do.

> "Master in name only" is still
> Master.

Actually, it denotes almost the exact opposite of this. A "nominal Master"
isn't a *real* master at all, which is what George is joking about.
 
> Bottom-line (the way the historical W reported the value of his slaves in
> his business records),

Again, this is your "bottom-line", not the text's. Where, in the novel
_Mason and Dixon_, does Pynchon's GW "report on the value of his slaves in
his business records"?

> The only one saying "slavery is liberty" is you.

No, the only person who has said "slavery is liberty" is you. It's a straw
man argument.

> So I remain
> happy to hover in a delicious Pynchonian cloud of unknowing.

Indeed. I wonder if another way to put this might be to call it
"head-in-the-sand denial as interpretive strategy ... brain dead ...
insubstantial and muddled" and then liken it to the pathetic squirming of
some Arizona County Fair contortionist? Mm? Perhaps there's an apt Frank
Zappa lyric ... ?

>> In fact, it's your argument which falls apart unless, against
>> substantial circumstantial and textual evidence to the contrary, you are
>> able to insist that George *doesn't* speak the line at 572.26, and that
>> Gershom *doesn't* speak the line at 572.28.
> 
> 
> I can't prove that negative,

No, of course you can't.

> and you certainly can't prove that W and G
> speak those lines as you insist.

No, but I'm certainly justified in assuming that, on the basis of
substantial circumstantial and textual evidence which I've provided, they
(very probably) do.

> Hogwash. Maybe he's in the room, maybe not; Pynchon leaves it something of
> a mystery. 

    Others, having caught Gershom's act before, recognize him right away.
                                                        (573.4)

This is definitive textual verification of Gershom's presence in the room.

> 
> That's all very well, but the bits and pieces of text larded with your
> fine opinions don't add up to "evidence"

No, this is inaccurate. Quotations from the novel _Mason & Dixon_ certainly
do comprise "evidence" in this context. At least, they should.

> that W considers G  an equal or
> that what Pynchon shows at Mt. Vernon is "enrichment" -- Pynchon uses
> another word, in fact:  decadent.

Er, that'd be Wicks, not "Pynchon".

>> 
>> In Ch. 28 *both* George and Gershom parody the stereotypical slave-master
>> relationship and style of discourse (278.19-22, 279.15-17) which the
>> Pennsylvanians so self-righteously and disdainfully attribute to Virginians
>> and Africans. Again, it is equal, and deliberately contrived to be so by
>> Pynchon.
> 
> I agree they appear to be having fun. But there's no evidence that
> Washington realizes what a fool Gershom makes of him,

Where, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, is it indicated or shown that Gershom
is intentionally trying to make "a fool" of GW, or that George isn't in on
one of Gershom's jokes?

> or that W understands
> the degree to which he's acting on deep-seated racist attitudes and
> beliefs, or that W considers G an equal.

Where, in the novel _Mason & Dixon_, is it indicated or shown that GW is
"acting on deep-seated racist attitudes and beliefs"?

> Pynchon frames Ch. 28 with a
> quote that makes it absolutely clear that this is a master-slave
> relationship, as P describes what W and G do as a decadent Folly that dates
> to the Dark Ages,

Er, again, that'd be Wicks rather than "Pynchon", wouldn't it?

> and equates slave-holding in America and Africa (bringing
> in to play that material in V., as well), as well as to the feudal Lord and
> Serf relationship. Pynchon further undercuts his Washington by pointing to
> a historical situation -- Washington's consigning  his own slaves to  years
> of back-breaking labor for Great Dismal Swamp Land Company --  that he
> (Pynchon) mocks by having his fictional Washington offering to sell shares
> in that venture to his fictional slave Gershom, an action inconceiveable
> for the "benevolent." and "humane" Massah Washington of Virginia.

That's your interpretation, and you're welcome to it. I think it's
stretching Gershom's quip at 279.32 beyond credible bounds. More likely is
the possibility that Gershom has spilt the beans about a real estate
investment opportunity which GW was going to bring to the attention of his
two guests. And, speaking of "indeterminacy", it's just as likely that the
name Gershom coupled with this reference to the Great Dismal Swamp Company
alludes to Gershom Nimmo, the appointed surveyor for GW's holdings in the
Great Dismal. 

http://www.norfolkhistorical.org/highlights/14.html

best

>